Network Working Group L. Johansson
Internet-Draft NORDUNet
Intended status: Informational April 14, 2011
Expires: October 16, 2011
An IANA registry for SAML 2.0 Level of Assurance Context Classes
draft-johansson-loa-registry-01
Abstract
This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
Context Classes for SAML 2.0. The registry is intended to be used as
an aid to discovering such LoA definitions.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SAML 2.0 LoA Registry April 2011
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Name of Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Registration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Reviewer Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Designated Experts Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Registry Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SAML 2.0 LoA Registry April 2011
1. Introduction
This document establishes an IANA registry for Level of Assurance
Context Profiles for SAML 2.0. Such objects are XML schema
definitions that fulfil the requirements of sstc-saml-loa-
authncontext-profile-draft-01
[OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01]. Quoting from
this specification we find the following definition of the concept of
level of assurance:
_Many existing (and potential) SAML federation deployments have
adopted a "levels of assurance" (or LOA) model for categorizing the
wide variety of authentication methods into a small number of levels,
typically based on some notion of the strength of the authentication.
Federation members (service providers or "relying parties") then
decide which level of assurance is required to access specific
protected resources, based on some assessment of "value" or "risk"._
Several so called trust frameworks and identity federations now
exist, some of which define one or more LoAs. The purpose of this
specification is to create an IANA registry where such LoA
definitions can be discovered.
Although the registry will contain URIs that reference SAML
Authentication Context Profiles other protocols MAY use such URIs to
represent levels of assurance definitions without relying on their
SAML XML definitions. Use of the registry by protocols other than
SAML is encouraged.
2. Name of Registry
The name of the registry shall be "SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class", in
plural "SAML LoA Context Classes". The term LoA is an abbreviation
of Level of Assurance.
3. Registration Template
The following information MUST be provided with each registration:
URI: A URI referencing a SAML 2.0 LoA Context Class. This is the
registry key.
Context Class: A valid XML schema definition for the SAML 2.0 LoA
Context Class fulfilling the requirements of sstc-saml-loa-
authncontext-profile-draft-01
[OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01].
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SAML 2.0 LoA Registry April 2011
Informational URL: A URL containing auxilliary information. This
URL MUST minimally reference contact information for the
administrative authority of the level of assurance definition.
Note that it is not uncommon for a single XML Schema to contain
definitions of multiple URIs. In that case the registration MUST be
repeated for each URI. Since the registry key (the URI) is unique by
design there is no need for namespace management for this registry.
4. Registration Policy
The registry is to be operated under the "Designated Expert Review"
policy from RFC5226 [RFC5226] employing a pool of experts. IANA is
kindly asked to do rough randomized load-balancing among the experts.
The initial pool of expert and the review criteria are outlined
below.
4.1. Reviewer Expectations
The of the IANA LoA Registry is that it contain bona fide SAML 2.0
LoA Context Class definitions while not presenting a very high bar
for entry. Expert reviewers SHOULD NOT place undue value in any
percieved or actual quality of the associated trust framework or
federation and SHOULD only exclude such registrations that in the
view of the experts do not represent bona fide attempts at defining
an LoA.
The designated experts are also expected to verify that the
registration is consistent and that the provided XML fulfills the
requirements of sstc-saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01
[OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01].
4.2. Designated Experts Pool
TBD
5. Registry Semantics
The intended use for this registry is to serve as a basis for
discovery of LoA definitions that might for instance be used by SAML
management tools. Consumers of the registry MUST NOT treat it as a
complete list of all existing LoA definitions and MUST provide a way
for the user to provide additional LoA Context Class definitions by
other means. It is not expected that all LoA definitions will be
contained in this registry.
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SAML 2.0 LoA Registry April 2011
The presense of an entry in the registy MUST NOT be taken to imply
any semantics beyond the review done by the expert reviewers as part
of the registration process.
6. IANA Considerations
This document sets up a registry with IANA making the whole document
a set of considerations for IANA.
7. Security Considerations
An implementor of MUST NOT treat the registry as a trust framework or
federation and MUST NOT make any assumptions about the properties of
any of the listed level of assurance URIs or their associated trust
frameworks or federations based on their presense in the IANA
registry.
8. Acknowledgements
Bob 'RL' Morgan, Scott Cantor, Lucy Lynch and John Bradley were
involved in the initial discussions around this idea and contributed
to the semantics of the registry.
9. Changes
Note to the RFC editor: This section should be removed before
publication.
9.1. since -00
o Clarified the security considerations wrt the status of the IANA
registry.
o Text in the introduction that explains that the registry can be
used by other protocols than SAML and that this is encouraged.
10. Normative References
[OASIS.sstc.saml-loa-authncontext-profile-draft-01]
Tiffany, E., Madsen, P., and S. Cantor, "Level of
Assurance Authentication Context Profiles for SAML 2.0",
July 2008.
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SAML 2.0 LoA Registry April 2011
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Author's Address
Leif Johansson
NORDUNet
Tulegatan 11
Stockholm
Sweden
Email: leifj@nordu.net
Johansson Expires October 16, 2011 [Page 6]
